Web Commentary Skeptical Of “Friends” Campaign Proliferating

Comments

KING 5, the local NBC affiliate in Seattle, says that the Friends of Amanda website is the work of Paul Ciolino. It also incorrectly indicates in its link to the site that the latter provides case evidence.

In fact, the site provides a very partial set of links to “friendly” articles and players (Dempsey, “Frank Sfarzo” and so on). In addition, Doug Preston’s book on the Monster of Florence has a prominent place.

Is Doug Preston a member of the Friends of Amanda? Was he involved in the founding of this organization? His grudge against prosecutor Mignini is well known, since he has used his access to the press to publicize it, so it is possible that he is a member of this organization, which seems in part to be a vehicle for getting back at Mignini.

Since the Friends in question are soliciting funds from the public, I am surprised there is not more transparency in terms of who its members are and exactly what the money is being used for. Maybe I just missed those articles. Does anyone out there have more information about this group?

In particular, I would like to know if Doug Preston approached the Knox/Mellas family or the PR firm to suggest that the line of attack focus on Mignini and make copious reference to The Monster of Florence and Doug Preston’s connection to that case and his recent book about it. Or was it the other way around?

Eyes for lies. The human lie detector blog.

An interesting blog that I am a fan of.

Eyes for lies, used to comment about the case in the old Steve Huff’s Truecrime blog. She also posted in her own blog about the Meredith Kercher case for a while. Her specialty is analyzing suspects, visually or their writings, behaviour, demenor, look, what they say and how.

Claims to have never got a case wrong.

Back in Nov 2007 she was analyzing AK’s statement to the police but stopped and gave her reason:

“It has been pointed out to me that Knox’s statement may have been translated from English to Italian to English again. If this is the case, I withdraw any and all conclusions as it is ESSENTIAL for me to have Knox’s words VERBATIM to make a determination (see comment section below).”

Last week she posted this again on the case:
Friday, January 16, 2009
Amanda Knox’s Trial Started Today

“The Guardian.co.uk displays a photo of Knox in the courtroom earlier today, and I find that photo as well as the one of Knox with Sollecito the day of Kercher’s body discovery fascinating.
If you were facing trial for murder, for a murder you did not commit, and it was the first day you appeared in court as the world peered on with countless reporters all glaring at you, would you be relaxed and comfortable enough to smile casually? Knox’s face in this photo looks notably relaxed to me.”

“We only cover our ears when we know what is going on, but don’t want to listen to the wretched noise before us. This statement shows that Amanda had some awareness of what was going on when Kercher screamed. To me, that is bone-chilling. I don’t think Knox lied about this bit of information. I suspect she was there and she did hear a scream, and perhaps she did cover her ears, but I believe she knew what was going on. It’s too strange of a lie to come up with if she wasn’t there or wasn’t in some way involved. She just changed the details, and those details give her away.”

This post is a lot longer. Here is the link to her interesting Blog:
http://tinyurl.com/bn332e

Where next:

Or to next entry Judge’s Report On Guede Sentence Suggests Roles Of Knox And Sollecito

Or to previous entry Is The “Mignini Has Framed Them” Meme Now Fading?